DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-6, 8-10, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sagayama US 2017/0210364 in view of Ogawa et al. WO 2018096415 A1 (page/line numbering used for foreign references below corresponds to the machine-translation preceding the original patent, as attached to the present Office Action – note page numbers of the translation are marked as TP-1, TP-2, etc.).
Regarding independent claim 16, Sagayama discloses [a straddle vehicle comprising: a front fork 43; a front wheel 42 that is held in a freely rotatable manner by the front fork;] (Fig. 3; Paragraph 0041) and a [brake system including a hydraulic pressure control unit 1 mounted to the front fork] (Paragraph 0034) and [capable of executing anti-lock brake control] (Fig. 1; Paragraph 0001; Paragraph 0034)
[the hydraulic pressure control unit 1 being configured to store a brake fluid that is released from a wheel cylinder 45 during depressurization in the anti-lock brake control in an accumulator 17] (Fig. 1 & 3; Paragraph 0051) [and to discharge the brake fluid in the accumulator 17 to outside of the accumulator in a pumpless manner,] (Paragraph 0050 & 0079) [the hydraulic pressure control unit 1 comprising:
a base body 6] (Fig. 1) [formed with: a master cylinder port 12 to which a fluid pipe (pipeline) communicating with a master cylinder 41 is connected] (Fig. 2 & 3; Paragraph 0057); [a wheel cylinder port 13 to which a fluid pipe communicating with the wheel cylinder 45 is connected;] (Fig. 2 & 3; Paragraph 0057) [and an internal channel 31, 32, 35 that communicates the master cylinder port 12 and the wheel cylinder port 13 with each other] (Fig. 2 & 3; Paragraph 0045);
[an inlet valve 4 and an outlet valve 5 that are provided to the base body 6 and open/close the internal channel 31, 32, 35 during the anti-lock brake control;] (Fig. 2 & 3; Paragraph 0046 & Paragraph 0051)
[a drive source for the inlet valve 4;] (Paragraph 0035)
[a drive source for the outlet valve 5;] (Paragraph 0035)
[a circuit board 15 that is electrically connected to valves 4, 5 and controls energization of the valves 4,5; and] (Paragraph 0051)
[a housing 3 that is connected to the base body 6 and accommodates the circuit board 15,] (Fig. 1; Paragraph 0038) [wherein
in the case where a perpendicular direction to a connection direction (X) of the housing 3 to the base body 6 is set as a width direction (Y),] (Fig. 1; As shown in Fig. 1, Sagayama illustrates a connection direction of the housing 3 to the base body 6 with a width direction that is perpendicular to the connection direction. Based on this configuration, the connection direction between the housing 3 and based body 6 can be understood as the (X) direction, while the width direction (Y) is defined as being perpendicular to the connection direction (X).) [one of a paired side surfaces that oppose each other in the width direction (Y) in the housing 3 is set as a first side surface, and the other thereof is set as a second side surface,] (Fig. 1; As shown in Fig. 1, Sagayama illustrates a pair of side surfaces that oppose each other in the width direction. One side comprising the connector 16 and another side opposing the connector.)
[wherein in the case where one of paired side surfaces of the base body 6 is set as a third side surface 8 and the other thereof is set as a fourth side surface, the paired side surfaces opposing each other in a perpendicular direction (Z) to the connection direction (X) and to the width direction (Y),] (Fig. 4a & 5a; As shown in Fig. 4a & 5a, Sagayama illustrates two side surfaces of the base body that oppose each other in the Z direction.)
[the master cylinder port 12 and the wheel cylinder port 13 are separately formed in the third side surface and the fourth side surface, respectively.] (Fig. 4a & 5a; Sagayama discloses that the master cylinder and wheel cylinder ports are on adjacent surfaces rather than directly opposite surfaces. The disclosed design includes a complex arrangement of fluid pipelines within a compact base body, which demonstrates the feasibility of reconfiguring the port placement. Given the intricate structure, the positioning of these ports is dictated by practical considerations, such as the routing of internal fluid passages. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that rearranging the ports to the opposite faces, while maintain proper fluid flow and functionality, is well within routine design capability and therefore an obvious modification; MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) explains that the rearrangement of parts, such as the positioning of ports, is a matter of design choice absent of persuasive evidence of unexpected results or unique benefits (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)).
[wherein only one pair of the inlet valve 112 and the outlet valve 113 is provided.] (Fig. 5; Paragraph 0040 of Sagayama)
[wherein the brake system 100 comprises
the hydraulic pressure control unit 110.] (Fig. 3; Paragraph 0001 of Sagayama)
[wherein the straddle type vehicle comprises
the brake system 100.] (Fig. 3; Paragraph 0002 of Sagayama)
[wherein the straddle vehicle comprises
a pair of front forks 43;] (Fig. 3; Paragraph 0041 of Sagayama) and
[a front wheel 42 that is held in a freely rotatable manner between the pair of front forks,] (Fig. 1; Paragraph 0041) wherein
[at least a part of the base body 111 is arranged between the front fork 25 and the front wheel 26.] (Fig. 3; Paragraph 0041)
Sagayama does not discloses a first coil of the inlet valve;
a second coil of the outlet valve;
a circuit board that is electrically connected to the first coil and the second coil and controls energization of the first coil and the second coil; and
a housing that accommodates the first coil and the second coil;
a maximum dimension in the width direction (Y) of the housing is greater than a maximum dimension in the width direction (Y) of the base body,
in the case where a second perpendicular direction to the connection direction (X) of the housing to the base body is set as a length direction (Z), a maximum dimension of the housing in the length direction (Z) is greater than the maximum dimension in the width direction (Y) of the housing;
and in a state where the hydraulic pressure control unit is seen in the connection direction (X), a center in the width direction (Y) of the base body is located on the first side surface side from a center in the width direction (Y) of the housing.
Ogawa et al. teaches, in another hydraulic pressure unit having hydraulic pressure regulation valves (Page 2, Paragraph 0002), [a first coil 11A as a drive source of the inlet valve;] (Fig. 3 & 9; Page 3, Paragraph 0006)
[a second coil 11B as a drive source of the outlet valve;] (Fig. 3 & 9; Page 3, Paragraph 0006)
[a circuit board 7F that is electrically connected to the first coil 11A and the second coil 11B and controls energization of the first coil 11A and the second coil 11B;] (Page 9, Paragraph 0043; Page 8-9, Paragraph 0039; Page 9; Paragraph 0040; Ogawa et al. discloses a driving coil that is energized to operate a hydraulic pressure regulating valve. This implicitly demonstrates that the system includes circuitry to control the application of current to the coil.) and
[a housing 12 that is connected to the base body 10 and accommodates the first coil 11A, the second coil 11B, and the circuit board 7F,] (Page 6, Paragraph 0027) wherein
[in the case where a perpendicular direction to a connection direction (X) of the housing to the base body is set as a width direction (Y),] (Fig. 5; Page 11, Paragraph 0057; As shown in Fig. 5, the housing is attached to the first surface 121 of the base. Based on this configuration, the connection direction between the housing and based body can be understood as the (X) direction, while the width direction (Y) is defined as being perpendicular to the connection direction (X).)
[a maximum dimension in the width direction (Y) of the housing 12 is greater than a dimension in the width direction (Y) of the base body (10)], (Annotation of Fig. 4; As shown in the annotation of Fig. 4 below, it is clearly illustrated that the housing has a greater dimension in the width direction (Y) than the base body.)
[and in a state where the hydraulic pressure control unit 1 is seen in the connection direction (X), a center in the width direction (Y) of the base body (10) is located on a first side surface side from a center in the width direction (Y) of the housing (40)] (Annotation of Fig. 4; As shown in the annotation of Fig. 4 below, Ogawa et al. shows that the centerline of the base body 10 in the width direction (Y) is offset toward one side of the housing’s centerline in the width direction (Y) when viewed in the connection direction (X).).
wherein [the second side surface includes an inclined section, a dimension in the width direction (Y) of which is reduced toward the base body.] (Fig. 3 & 4; MPEP.04(IV)(B) explains that changes in shape, such as inclining a surface, are considered design choices absent of persuasive evidence that the specific configuration provides a unique or unexpected benefit (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)). In this case, the claimed configuration of the inclined section would have been a predictable variation with the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art.)
wherein [the housing 12 includes:
a body that is formed with an opening in a surface that opposes a surface connected to the base body;] (Fig. 5 of Ogawa et al.) and
[a lid 14 that covers the opening of the body,] (Fig. 5; Page 10, Paragraph 0051) and
[in the connection direction (X), a part of a peripheral edge of the opening is located on a side near the base body from the circuit board,] (Fig. 5; As shown in Fig. 5 below, Ogawa et al. illustrates a peripheral edge of the opening that is located on a side near the base body from the circuit.) [and another part that opposes the part of the peripheral edge is located on a side farther from the base body from the part of the peripheral edge.] (Fig. 5; As shown in Fig. 5 below, Ogawa et al. illustrates another part of the peripheral edge that opposes the first part, and is located on a side further from the base body.)
wherein [the part of the peripheral edge is continuously connected to the other part of the peripheral edge.] (Fig. 5)
wherein [the first coil and the second coil are erected from a surface, to which the housing is connected, in the base body.] (Fig. 5; Page 9, Paragraph 0040)
wherein the first coil 11A and the second coil 11B are aligned in a perpendicular direction (Z) to the width direction (Y). (Fig. 6; Page 11, Paragraph 0054)
wherein [a terminal 16 is provided to a top surface of each of the first coil 11A and the second coil 11B, and] (Fig. 5; Paragraph 0041; Page 10, Paragraph 0047)
[each of the first coil and the second coil is electrically connected to the circuit board 161 via the terminal.] (Fig. 5; Page 9, Paragraph 0043)
PNG
media_image1.png
702
889
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4 of Ogawa et al.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of hydraulic pressure unit having hydraulic pressure regulation valves before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the hydraulic pressure control unit and valve arrangement of Sagayama with the coil configuration and circuit board configuration taught by Ogawa et al. This combination would improve the integration and functionality of the hydraulic pressure control unit by incorporating a more efficient and compact coil design and housing arrangement, thus enhancing the spatial configuration and operational performance, making the system more effective for use in straddle vehicles. (Paragraph 0009 of Ogawa et al.)
Sagayama, as modified above, does not explicitly teach that in the case where a second perpendicular direction to the connection direction (X) of the housing to the base body is set as a length direction (Z), a maximum dimension of the housing in the length direction (Z) is greater than the maximum dimension in the width direction (Y) of the housing. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the dimensions of the housing in Ogawa to use a maximum length direction (Z) greater than a maximum width direction (Y), so as to achieve an optimal internal component layout and thermal management efficiency. Specifically, increasing the housing length provides greater surface area for heat dissipation and improved spacing of heat-generating components, thus enhancing overall cooling performance. Since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. See, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Moreover, Applicant should note that nothing of record, nor known in the art, suggests that using the specific claimed range or value yields any previously unexpected results.
Sagayama, as modified above, does not explicitly teach that the width direction is a direction that extends between the front fork and the front wheel and the first side surface (45) is closer to the front wheel than the second side surface. However, according to MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(C) (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)), the rearrangement of known elements does not confer patentability when such a modification does not alter the function or operation of the system. In this case, orienting the hydraulic pressure control unit such that the width direction extends between the front fork and the front wheel and positioning one side surface closer to the front wheel than the other would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art as it merely reconfigures the known system without yielding an unexpected result.
Regarding claim 2, Sagayama, as modified above by the teachings of Ogawa, already discloses all of the claimed limitations, including [wherein the second side surface includes an inclined section.] (Fig. 3 & 4 of Ogawa et al.; MPEP.04(IV)(B) explains that changes in shape, such as inclining a surface, are considered design choices absent of persuasive evidence that the specific configuration provides a unique or unexpected benefit (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)). In this case, the claimed configuration of the inclined section would have been a predictable variation with the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art.) See rejection of parent claim 1, above, including details from Ogawa et al., and applying MPEP 2144.01(IV)(B) to determine that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize spatial arrangement and functional integration of the hydraulic pressure control unit.
Regarding claim 3, Sagayama, as modified above by the teachings of Ogawa, already discloses all of the claimed limitations, including
[the housing 12 includes:
a body 10 that is formed with an opening in a surface that opposes a surface connected to the base body;] (Fig. 5 of Ogawa et al.) and
[a lid 14 that covers the opening of the body,] (Fig. 5; Page 10, Paragraph 0051 of Ogawa et al.) and
[in the connection direction (X), a part of a peripheral edge of the opening is located on a side near the base body from the circuit board,] (Fig. 5 of Ogawa et al.; As shown in Fig. 5 below, Ogawa et al. illustrates a peripheral edge of the opening that is located on a side near the base body from the circuit 7F) [and another part that opposes the part of the peripheral edge is located on a side farther from the base body 10 from the part of the peripheral edge.] (Fig. 5 of Ogawa et al.; As shown in Fig. 5 below, Ogawa et al. illustrates another part of the peripheral edge that opposes the first part, and is located on a side further from the base body 10.) See rejection of parent claim 1, above, including details from Ogawa et al. disclosing the housing configuration and peripheral edge arrangement, and the motivation to combine Ogawa et al.’s housing configuration with Sagayama’s system to provide a structurally sound housing that facilitates efficient placement and secure protection of the internal components while maintaining a reliable connection to the base body.
PNG
media_image2.png
493
814
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 5 of Ogawa et al.
Regarding claim 4, Sagayama, as modified above by the teachings of Ogawa, already discloses all of the claimed limitations, including wherein [the part of the peripheral edge is continuously connected to the other part of the peripheral edge.] (Fig. 5 of Ogawa et al.) See rejection of parent claim 1, above, including details from Ogawa et al. disclosing the continuous connection of the peripheral edge, and the motivation to combine Ogawa’s housing configuration with Sagayama’s system to enhance structural integrity and improve sealing performance by ensuring a continuous and uninterrupted connection around the peripheral edge.
Regarding claim 5, Sagayama, as modified above by the teachings of Ogawa, already discloses all of the claimed limitations, including wherein [the first coil and the second coil are erected from a surface, to which the housing is connected, in the base body.] (Fig. 5; Page 9, Paragraph 0040 of Ogawa et al.) See rejection of parent claim 1, above, including details from Ogawa et al. disclosing the arrangement of the coils, and the motivation to combine Ogawa et al.’s coil arrangement with Sagayama’s system to optimize electromagnetic performance, reduce spatial constraints, and facilitate integration of the coils into the base body for improved functionality and reliability.
Regarding claim 6, Sagayama, as modified above by the teachings of Ogawa, already discloses all of the claimed limitations, including wherein the first coil 11A and the second coil 11B are aligned in the length direction (Z). (Fig. 6; Page 11, Paragraph 0054 of Ogawa et al.) See rejection of parent claim 1, above, including details from Ogawa et al. disclosing the alignment of the coils, and the motivation to combine Ogawa et al.’s coil arrangement with Sagayama’s system to ensure compact integration, enhance electromagnetic efficiency, and improve the spatial arrangement of the components in the base body.
Regarding claim 8, Sagayama, as modified above by the teachings of Ogawa, already discloses all of the claimed limitations, including wherein
[a terminal 16 is provided to a top surface of each of the first coil 11A and the second coil 11B, and] (Fig. 5; Paragraph 0041; Page 10, Paragraph 0047 of Ogawa et al.)
[each of the first coil and the second coil is electrically connected to the circuit board 161 via the terminal.] (Fig. 5; Page 9, Paragraph 0043 of Ogawa et al.) See rejection of parent claim 1, above, including details from Ogawa et al. disclosing the electrical connection between the coils and the circuit board via terminals, and the motivation to combine Ogawa et al.’s terminal configuration with Sagayama’s system to ensure efficient electrical connections, simplify assembly, and enhance overall system reliability by reducing wiring complexity.
Regarding claim 9, Sagayama, as modified by the teachings of Sagayama, already discloses all of the claimed limitations, including
[a connector 16 that is electrically connected to the circuit board 15,] (Fig. 2; Paragraph 0039) [wherein
the connector 16 is arranged to at least one of paired side surfaces that oppose each other in the length direction (Z).] (Fig. 2; As shown in Fig. 2, Sagayama illustrates the connector being arranged to at least one pair of side surfaces side surface that oppose each other in a perpendicular direction (Z) to the width direction (Y) in the housing.) See rejection of parent claim 1, above, including details from Sagayama disclosing the electrical connection between the connector and the circuit board and the motivation to combine Sagayama’s connector arrangement with Ogawa’s system to enhance modularity, simplify assembly, and improve accessibility by reducing spatial constraints within the housing.
Regarding claim 10, Sagayama, as modified above, already discloses all of the claimed limitations, including wherein [in the case where one of paired side surfaces of the base body 6 is set as a third side surface 8 and the other thereof is set as a fourth side surface, the paired side surfaces opposing each other in the length direction (Z),] (Fig. 4a & 5a of Sagayama; As shown in Fig. 4a & 5a, Sagayama illustrates two side surfaces of the base body that oppose each other in the Z direction.) [the master cylinder port 12 and the wheel cylinder port 13 are separately formed in the third side surface and the fourth side surface, respectively.] (Fig. 4a & 5a of Sagayama; MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) explains that the rearrangement of parts, such as the positioning of ports, is a matter of design choice absent of persuasive evidence of unexpected results or unique benefits (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)). See rejection of parent claim 1, above, including details from Sagayama and applying MPEP 2144.01(IV)(B) to determine that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize fluid routing and improve structural layout within the hydraulic pressure control unit.
Regarding claim 12, Sagayama, as modified above, already discloses all of the claimed limitations, including [wherein only one pair of the inlet valve 112 and the outlet valve 113 is provided.] (Fig. 5; Paragraph 0040 of Sagayama) See rejection of parent claim 1, above, including details from Sagayama disclosing the provision of a single pair of valves, and the motivation to combine Sagayama’s valve configuration with Ogawa et al.’s system to reduce component count, minimize manufacturing costs, and streamline the hydraulic system for improved performance and maintenance efficiency.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sagayama and Ogawa et al. in view of Sakamoto JP 2010274904 A
Regarding claim 7, Sagayama, as modified, does not disclose a pressure sensor that is provided to the base body and detects a pressure of the brake fluid, wherein the first coil, the second coil, and the pressure sensor are aligned in the length direction (Z).
Sakamoto teaches [a pressure sensor 13 that is provided to the base body and detects a pressure of the brake fluid] (Fig. 2; Page 3, lines 27-28), [wherein the first coil 8a, the second coil 8a, and the pressure sensor (103) are aligned in the length direction (Z).] (Fig. 2; MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) explains that the rearrangement of parts, such as the alignment of components, is a matter of design choice absent of persuasive evidence of unexpected results or unique benefits (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of hydraulic antilock brake control before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the pressure sensor configuration, as taught by Sakamoto, with the system disclosed by Sagayama, as modified, to enhance the functionality of the system by enabling real-time monitoring of the brake fluid pressure, thus improving the reliability and responsiveness of the hydraulic pressure control unit. (Page 3, lines 27-28 of Sakamoto)
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sagayama and Ogawa et al. in view of Weh et al. US 20150329094 A1
Regarding claim 11, Sagayama, as modified by Ogawas, does not disclose the internal channel being configured not to be able to return the brake fluid in the accumulator to the master cylinder port without interposing the outlet valve.
Weh et al. teaches [the internal channel 88 being configured not to be able to return the brake fluid in the accumulator 40 to the master cylinder port 74 without interposing the outlet valve 38.] (Figs. 1 & 6; Paragraphs [0046] – [0049]; Weh et al. discloses an outlet valve 38 is connected hydraulically to the pressure accumulator 40 via connector 92, such that the pressure accumulator 40 is only connected to the hydraulic system through the outlet valve 38. This design ensures that brake fluid in the accumulator cannot directly return to the master cylinder port 74 without passing through the outlet valve 38.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of hydraulic anti-lock braking systems before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Sagayama’s system, as modified by Ogawa, with Weh et al.’s configuration to prevent the brake fluid in the accumulator from returning to the master cylinder port without interposing the outlet valve, thus enhancing the overall efficiency and reliability of the braking system by reducing the risk of backflow.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 02/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (Page 2, lines 10-16 of Remarks) that Sagayama in view of Ogawa fails to disclose that the width direction extends between the front fork and the front wheel and that the first side surface is closer to the front wheel than the second side surface, and therefore does not teach the claimed orientation of the hydraulic pressure control unit. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed in the rejection of claim 16 above, Sagayama discloses a straddle-type vehicle including a front fork and a front wheel, as well as the placement of the hydraulic pressure control unit within the vehicle structure. The claimed recitation of the “width direction” extending between the front fork and the front wheel, and the relative positioning of side surfaces with respect to the front wheel, merely defines an orientation of the known device with the existing vehicle environment. Such an orientation constitutes rearrangement of known elements and does not impart structural or functional distinction over the prior art. As set forth in MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(C), rearrangement of parts is considered an obvious matter of design choice when it does not modify the operation of the device. In the present case, orienting the hydraulic pressure control unit such that the width direction extends between the front fork and the front wheel, and positioning one side closer to the front wheel than the other, would have been an obvious design consideration based on available mounting space and packaging constraints. This modification merely reconfigures the placement of the known components without changing their function or yielding any unexpected result.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mohamed Medani whose telephone number is (703)756-1917. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 5:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Valentin Neacsu can be reached on (571) 272-6265. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Mohamed M Medani/Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/VALENTIN NEACSU, Ph.D./Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights